The UN Small arms treaty is a joke. It should have been called only Government and the UN can have small arms treaty.

Even if the US senate were to some how ratify this garbage the Constitution is still supreme law. Treaties are below it. Otherwise we would have lost
all our rights a long time ago.

The UN can go pound sand and pout.

True, True, True, This Time,,, Only because we had people in the Senate that had already Said NO, because 53 senators voted to uphold Second Amendment
rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Let me post How Proud Kerry was to Sign that worthless Treaty for his Messiah.

Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Wednesday. Upon adding his signature, Kerry addressed the world
body:

On behalf of President Obama and the United States of America, I am very pleased to have signed this treaty here today. I signed it because President
Obama knows that from decades of efforts that at any time that we work with — cooperatively to address the illicit trade in conventional weapons, we
make the world a safer place. And this treaty is a significant step in that effort.

Promptly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon thanked Kerry and Obama for their complicity in consolidating UN control over weapons and
ammunition:

I won't call you Blind,,, but you need to know, there are forces at working that don't
like us being Armed and Informed.

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they
very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty”
premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious
threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

Specifically it entials the international trade in armaments, and specifically it has no requirements on any contry to do anything with or about or to
any domestic firearms laws it may chose to have or not have.

On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from
small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilizing arms flows to
conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords,
pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools.

if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one
trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Nope.

Blah blah blah

What a load of tosh.

The UN treaty is solely about the international trade in arms, and it SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES all domestic arms issues.

All I have is a cudgel and an athame so I think I'll be set once all the guns are gone.

Seriously, though... I'm not sure this kind of talk is a great idea. I mean, just saying that to myself seems wrong; like I shouldn't have to say
that. But I honestly get the impression that this kind of talk is dangerous for all involved.

To those of you with guns and family, I urge you not to get all alpha when/if they come for your irons. I don't want Ruby Ridge to become an
epidemic or a new slang term (i.e. "Did you hear about the Petersons? They just got Ruby Ridged!")

You will not win. If it escalates, you will lose. Fighting this with non-threats will be far more effective and lessen the chance of having to fight
it for real someday. Because, if that day ever comes, it will be a civil war and you will lose. Everybody will. Because if that day comes, we will
lose every other right in short order after the smoke clears. We should be making every effort to make sure that day never comes, not to fantasize
about it. Threats are what they want. It's what will let them justify curfews and martial law.

Now, with the TSA, FBI, and CIA as my witnesses (I'm assuming), I have no guns in my home but if you barge your way in, there some nasty curses
you'll unleash on yourself if you go through my altar room.

0rbital
It's apparent that without your guns you are a very scared people. Sad.

Iceland just had their first death-by-cop. They are fine without guns. We are not Iceland. We live in a cop buddy film where a fourth of the cops
are the "loose cannon", another fourth are the "bad cops", and the last half are too scared to speak up about it. Oh, and all of our politicians
are basically Dick Jones from the original Robocop.

There's a reason why even most of the liberals here would be disturbed to see the complete dismantling of the 2nd amendment.

But ask yourself, in what country would a person need a semi automatic high powered rifle to protect themselves against home invaders, thugs or other
miscreants? wouldn't a sidearm suffice?

Then again I come from a place where I don't have to lock my doors at night, hell I could leave it unlocked while I was at work if i wanted to. I can
see the right to protect ones self, but I don't see why people need an AR-15 to do so.

You have the right to bear whatever arms you wish, but when a lunatic has the same rights and decides to go on a shooting spree, well...

Personally I have my friend U.B at hand. He doesn't require loading, aiming, or maintenance, but he has the same stopping power.

But ask yourself, in what country would a person need a semi automatic high powered rifle to protect themselves against home invaders, thugs or other
miscreants? wouldn't a sidearm suffice?

Then again I come from a place where I don't have to lock my doors at night, hell I could leave it unlocked while I was at work if i wanted to. I can
see the right to protect ones self, but I don't see why people need an AR-15 to do so.

You have the right to bear whatever arms you wish, but when a lunatic has the same rights and decides to go on a shooting spree, well...

Personally I have my friend U.B at hand. He doesn't require loading, aiming, or maintenance, but he has the same stopping power.

Meh, I learned from these threads: Don't come armed with logic to a gun-antigun-fight.
---
The core of all thoughts here is simple: If you have guns, the other one will have guns, too. So you need more/better/bigger guns. Which goes for the
other person as well.

Result: spiral of logic-defying weapon-purchases. And not a yota-tiny-bit more security..

Whilst I have no interest in getting into a gun debate, in the spirit of denying ignorance I would like to point out that the graphic entitled
'League of Shame' in the OP is deliberately misleading.

That graphic is frequently trotted out on here as it claims the UK suffers in excess of 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 people - far in excess of
'traditionally' violent nations such as South Africa.

This is a hugely misleading statistic because 'violent' crime is categorised differently in UK statistics to virtually anywhere else. All sexual
crime is considered 'violent', for instance, meaning that someone being convicted of downloading child pornography has committed a violent crime in
statistical terms. This goes the same for countless other crimes (verbal assault, hate speak etc) that wouldn't be counted under the more common
'physical violence' terms used in statistics by other countries in that list. I dunno why it's done this way here, to be honest, but it is - and
always has been.

That graphic was also published by the Daily Mail newspaper which is a highly Conservative tabloid newspaper known for printing skewed data and
statistics to support it's sensationalist reporting. The Mail created this table knowing full well that it was deliberately misleading.

Lil Drummerboy
Is there really a threat that we the people are going to loose our right to bare arms?

Undoubtedly, yes. One only has to listen to the people arguing in favor of gun control, including the politicians, to know that most of them don't
know what the hell they're talking about. If they don't know anything about firearms, then can you really expect them to support or put forth
legislation that is both effective in dealing with firearm-related crime, but also protects the rights of the law abiding gun owners? I don't.

Furthermore, just consider how disingenuous the whole 'assault weapons ban' really is. A person is expected to believe that 'assault weapons',
accounting for perhaps 2% of the yearly homicides in the country, present some great societal harm, but once we ban them, that's it, they have no
interest in your handguns, shotguns or other rifles, that combined account for the other 98% of firearm related homicides. Do you know how
ludicrous that sounds? A person has to be awfully gullible or naive in order to believe that.

Cuervo
You will not win. If it escalates, you will lose. Fighting this with non-threats will be far more effective and lessen the chance of having to fight
it for real someday. Because, if that day ever comes, it will be a civil war and you will lose. Everybody will. Because if that day comes, we will
lose every other right in short order after the smoke clears.

I wonder where we would be today if certain persons in the 1770's had the same perspective. I suppose it all comes down to what the individual
citizen is willing to sacrifice to ensure their inalienable and self evident rights.

But ask yourself, in what country would a person need a semi automatic high powered rifle to protect themselves against home invaders, thugs or other
miscreants? wouldn't a sidearm suffice?

Sure, but depending on which state you live in handguns are either really easy to obtain or nearly impossible to jump through the legal hoops and
paperwork and background checks etc... Especially if you have the poor luck to live in a state like NY or Connecticut where the wait time for a
handgun permit ( in NY at least) shot up from3-6 months to 12-18 months.

Then again I come from a place where I don't have to lock my doors at night, hell I could leave it unlocked while I was at work if i wanted
to. I can see the right to protect ones self, but I don't see why people need an AR-15 to do so.

Need isn't really the pejorative. For me personally, as an army vet, the AR is identical to the weapon platform I was trained on. There's a comfort
factor, familiarity and proficiency factor to it that makes me more likely to hit my target. And less likely to catch one of my kids in a crossfire if
someone came into my house in the middle of the night. And honestly if I've got to come out with a loaded weapon it's because they have made it past
and harmed the two Akitas which are my first line of defense and my early warning system. So if something happens to those guys all bets are off.

You have the right to bear whatever arms you wish, but when a lunatic has the same rights and decides to go on a shooting spree, well...

Personally I have my friend U.B at hand. He doesn't require loading, aiming, or maintenance, but he has the same stopping power.

Te other side of that equation is that whether hey have the same rights or any rights is irrelevant to someone already willing to commit a felony or
a violent crime. They will and do obtain whatever weapon they want to tie themselves whatever perceived advantage they feel they need. Ironically at
the beginning you ask about handguns over a semi auto rifle. I say ironic because the majority of gun crimes are committed with a hand gun and not
the dreaded AR-15. When someone is committing a crime, the average felon wants the ability to go unnoticed. You can't do that with a long rifle or
shotgun that hasn't had the barrel trimmed down. A nighttime home invasion is a different story, usually. Less concern for stealth makes people more
brazen.

peter vlar
Ironically at the beginning you ask about handguns over a semi auto rifle. I say ironic because the majority of gun crimes are committed with a hand
gun and not the dreaded AR-15. When someone is committing a crime, the average felon wants the ability to go unnoticed. You can't do that with a long
rifle or shotgun that hasn't had the barrel trimmed down.

Yep. I was about to point out the irony in that statement myself. Its a common position among those who support banning the AR-15 and similar
weapons, and understandable given how badly they've been misled by the media, but handguns are actually far more dangerous in the hands of someone
with criminal intent, for all the reasons you state. In fact, about 80% of all firearm related homicides in the US every year are committed with
handguns.

Again, all this take of you thinking untrained civilians are going to to all rise up on the DEFENSIVE against "guns being taken away" doesn't hold
up to the fact that they still haven't gone on the OFFENSIVE. Was 9/11 not enough? Or do you think that was Fairy Bin Laden's fault?

There are certainly other contributing factors, but total homicides and the homicide rate in the US have been trending sharply downward since the
early 90s, and both are as low as they've been since the late 60s/early 70s. The homicide rate is about half what it was 20 years ago. The same
has happened with regards to other classes of violent crime as well. Gun sales, by contrast, have been skyrocketing. NICS background checks for
firearm purchases have nearly tripled over the last 15 years or so, with roughly 21 million just last year. Additionally, widespread legalization
of concealed carry has also coincided with this time period, and millions are now licensed to carry firearms on their person in their day-to-day
business when it was previously illegal to do so.

So in light of that, I'm not sure that we can say definitively that he's wrong. The evidence strongly suggests that you can have a society where
sharp increases in the rate of firearm sales and concealed carry occur simultaneously, for whatever reason, with sharp declines in violent crime and
homicide rates. Furthermore, rural areas in the US have always tended to have significantly lower rates of violent crime and homicides than the
urban areas, yet they also tend to have higher rates of firearm ownership. So I'm not sure that, in the case of the United States, at least,
there is a direct correlation. It might be true in a society where there essentially are no privately owned firearms, but that's never going to be a
practical reality here.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.